DOCSLIB.ORG

Testimony on Guestworker Programs Before the Immigration Subcommittee Committee on the Judiciary U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Testimony on Guestworker Programs Before the Immigration Subcommittee Committee on the Judiciary U.S TESTIMONY ON GUESTWORKER PROGRAMS BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION SUBCOMMITTEE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Presented by: Cecilia Muñoz, Vice President Office of Research, Advocacy and Legislation National Council of La Raza 1111 19th Street NW Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Raul Yzaguirre, President June 19, 2001 NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA TESTIMONY ON GUESTWORKER ISSUES PRESENTED TO THE IMMIGRATION SUBCOMMITTEE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 19, 2001 I. Introduction My name is Cecilia Muñoz. I am the Vice President for the Office of Research, Advocacy and Legislation of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR). NCLR is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization established in 1968 to reduce poverty and discrimination and improve life opportunities for Hispanic Americans. NCLR is the largest constituency-based national Hispanic organization, serving all Hispanic nationality groups in all regions of the country through our network of 260 affiliate community-based groups and regional offices. NCLR has supported fair and effective immigration and farmworker policies for over two decades, and has provided a fact- based Latino perspective on the issue of immigration. NCLR approaches this issue as a civil rights organization, with an interest in protecting the rights of our constituency within the United States, and promoting the values and principles of the nation as a whole. I appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement before the Subcommittee today. As the Subcommittee is aware, the nation has substantial history with guestworker programs, particularly in agriculture. This history began with the bracero program, which was created in the 1940s and initiated the stream of migrant labor from Mexico to the United States which exists to this day. For the nation's Latinos, the bracero program has come to epitomize a history of abuse and mistreatment of farmworkers, who continue to be the most vulnerable and poorly treated workers in the United States, whether they are imported from abroad, or hired from within the United States. These hard-working Americans toil in the fields for meager earnings and few benefits; they sustain multi billion dollar industries and literally put food on our tables. Yet, they remain largely invisible to the rest of the country. Under a century-old system of labor, farmworkers continue to be inadequately protected by federal laws and regulations, including worker protection standards that all other workers take for granted. Almost exactly one year ago, I appeared before this Subcommittee to oppose legislation that had been introduced in this body to expand and weaken the protections of the H-2A program, which is the agricultural guestworker program under current law. I will not repeat the arguments I made in that testimony, but I remind the Committee that the conditions in which the nation's farmworkers live and work continue to deteriorate, as demonstrated by declining real wages, substantial unemployment, and deplorable housing conditions. For these reasons, NCLR continues to question the need for temporary worker programs in agriculture; we argued last year that the existence of a labor shortage in this industry would be indicated by increasing wages, increased demand for workers' time, and improving conditions. Indeed, the opposite is true. II. The Opportunity to Shift the Debate National Council of La Raza Testimony on Guestworker Issues Page 2 For at least the last two decades, the guestworker debate has focused almost entirely on agriculture and has followed a basic framework: the agricultural industry lobbies to expand the H- 2A program and reduce what they perceive as its obstacles, the same provisions that we believe are essential safeguards. NCLR, along with many allies in the immigrant rights movement, has opposed these changes vigorously on the grounds that they would worsen the already deplorable wages and working conditions for farmworkers. For the most part, this situation has resulted in a vigorous debate, but one which is essentially a stalemate, with no major legislative outcome.1 Neither side has achieved its major objectives; the industry has not secured an increased supply of labor, and the immigrant and farmworker rights movements have been unable to advance affirmative policies to improve conditions for the farmworker population. NCLR believes that current circumstances may permit this dynamic to shift in a way that advances the issue beyond its current stalemate. Several factors contribute to this assessment. First, we note that this hearing does not address specific legislative proposals, but rather raises the issue more generally, creating an opportunity to advance affirmative proposals rather than to respond to legislative initiatives. Second, the debate has clearly expanded to include industries beyond agriculture who are approaching the issue differently. One of the many differences between the service sector and agricultural workers is the fact that workers in service industries are covered by the same labor protections as the rest of the American workforce; this cannot be said of agricultural workers. Indeed, the existence of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC) demonstrates a new atmosphere of respect for the role of immigrant workers – including those without immigration status – in the workplace, and a desire to provide mechanisms for a stable, permanent workforce, one with the same rights and protections that other American workers have come to rely upon. Third, representatives of the agricultural industry and the key organization of the farmworker rights movement, the United Farmworkers of America, have held historic discussions and agreed in principle on a set of policy alternatives that both sides can live with. Though the results of these discussions have not yet been presented as a legislative proposal for others to respond to, NCLR believes that these organizations have moved the debate forward in a positive direction. Finally, it must be said that the historic negotiations that were initiated between the United States and Mexico by both countries' newly-elected Presidents present a unique opportunity to advance this debate – and expand it beyond agriculture – in a constructive way that can address the needs of both businesses and workers alike. NCLR strongly believes that, while these discussions present a real opportunity to move the debate in a positive direction, they also present real dangers. We, like many others, are watching them closely. At its best, this new relationship provides a 1 There are a few major exceptions to this framework, most particularly the H-1B program, through which highly–skilled temporary workers are brought to the United States to work in high-tech and other specialized positions. NCLR has not taken positions on the recent expansions of the H-1B program, and has instead focused its efforts on temporary worker programs in agriculture. National Council of La Raza Testimony on Guestworker Issues Page 3 chance to inject some reality into this debate, acknowledging the need for immigrant workers in the U.S. and the critical role they play in our economy, and providing the most vulnerable of them with basic rights and protections that they currently lack. At its worst, this process could result in a new guestworker initiative in the model that we have come to know over the better part of the last century, one which results in mistreatment for both the workers in the temporary labor program, as well as those already working in those industries within the United States. III. Principles for the Current Debate NCLR feels very strongly that both the United States and Mexico should avail themselves of their historic opportunity to fundamentally reshape the debate over temporary workers and the role of the undocumented workforce in the United States. A combination of factors, including the alarming and unacceptable number of deaths at the U.S./Mexico border, the significant and growing number of undocumented workers who have found a place in the U.S. labor force (which the Urban Institute has estimated at around 8.5 million), and increasing evidence demonstrating that a number of industries beyond agriculture rely on this labor force, all demonstrate that the immigration policies that the U.S. has aimed primarily at Mexico have failed and need to be reformulated. NCLR believes that the negotiations between these two nations, as well as any legislative discussion of these issues, should be guided by the following principles: 1) Temporary worker programs by themselves are not a viable long–term policy option. NCLR has opposed all proposed expansions to the H-2A program because we are strongly persuaded that they would negatively affect both the temporary workers and the U.S. agricultural labor force, and because we profess a strong preference for workers who are permanently, legally part of U.S. communities and the U.S. workforce. There is a real danger that the current debate will simply follow the structure which has been in place since the days of the bracero program; indeed, one such proposal is being talked about in the Senate. If such a proposal were to emerge from the negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico, or in the legislative process, NCLR would have no choice but to oppose it vigorously. 2) Any temporary worker program that emerges from this debate must be markedly different from the status quo. While NCLR's strong opposition to temporary worker programs in agriculture is well-known, we acknowledge the reality that some of the workers who currently come from Mexico and other countries to work in the U.S. in agriculture and other industries do so with the intention of returning to their home countries. They do not seek to be immigrants, and often end up "trapped" in the United States because our border control policies make it to difficult to depart and re-enter, swelling the ranks of the undocumented. It is reasonable, then, to construct a temporary worker framework that provides a role for such workers whose labor is needed in the U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Shortage of Skilled Workers Looms in U.S. - Los Angeles Times
    Shortage of skilled workers looms in U.S. - Los Angeles Times http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/21/local/me-immiglabor21 California | Local You are here: LAT Home > Articles > 2008 > April > 21 > California | Local Shortage of skilled workers looms in U.S. By Teresa Watanabe April 21, 2008 With baby boomers preparing to retire as the best educated and most skilled workforce in U.S. history, a growing chorus of demographers and labor experts is raising concerns that workers in California and the nation lack the critical skills needed to replace them. In particular, experts say, the immigrant workers needed to fill many of the boomer jobs lack the English-language skills and basic educational levels to do so. Many immigrants are ill-equipped to fill California’s fastest-growing positions, including computer software engineers, registered nurses and customer service representatives, a new study by the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute found. Immigrants – legal and illegal – already constitute almost half of the workers in Los Angeles County and are expected to account for nearly all of the growth in the nation’s working-age population by 2025 because native-born Americans are having fewer children. But the study, based largely on U.S. Census data, noted that 60% of the county’s immigrant workers struggle with English and one-third lack high school diplomas. The looming mismatch in the skills employers need and those workers offer could jeopardize the future economic vitality of California and the nation, experts say. Los Angeles County, the largest immigrant metropolis with about 3.5 million foreign-born residents, is at the forefront of this demographic trend.
    [Show full text]
  • Plaintiffs Filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Or in the Alternative
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PHILIP KINSLEY, et al. Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-00962-JEB v. ANTONY J. BLINKEN, et al. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OR Defendants. SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE ALTERNATIVE AILA Doc. No. 21040834. (Posted 6/15/21) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE ALTERNATIVE Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and Local Civil Rule 65.1, Plaintiffs respectfully move the Court for a preliminary injunction, or in the alternative, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Civil Rule 7, summary judgment to enjoin Defendants from continuing a “no visa policy” in specific consulates as a means to implement suspensions on entry to the United States under Presidential Proclamations issued under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA” ) § 212(f). The parties conferred and submitted a joint scheduling order consistent with the procedural approach for an expedited resolution of this matter. See ECF No. 14. The filing of this motion complies with the agreed upon schedule, though undersigned counsel understands the Court has yet to grant the parties’ motion. Id. Dated: June 11, 2021 Respectfully Submitted, __/s/ Jeff Joseph_ Jeff D. Joseph Joseph & Hall P.C. 12203 East Second Avenue Aurora, CO 80011 (303) 297-9171 [email protected] D.C. Bar ID: CO0084 Greg Siskind Siskind Susser PC 1028 Oakhaven Rd. Memphis, TN 39118 [email protected] D.C. Bar ID: TN0021 Charles H. Kuck Kuck Baxter Immigration, LLC 365 Northridge Rd, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30350 [email protected] AILA Doc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Labor Department's Green-Card Test -- Fair Process Or Bureaucratic
    The Labor Department’s Green-Card Test -- Fair Process or Bureaucratic Whim? Angelo A. Paparelli, Ted J. Chiappari and Olivia M. Sanson* Governments everywhere, the United States included, are tasked with resolving disputes in peaceful, functional ways. One such controversy involves the tension between American employers seeking to tap specialized talent from abroad and U.S. workers who value their own job opportunities and working conditions and who may see foreign-born job seekers as unwelcome competition. Given these conflicting concerns, especially in the current economic climate, this article will review recent administrative agency decisions involving permanent labor certification – a labor-market testing process designed to determine if American workers are able, available and willing to fill jobs for which U.S. employers seek to sponsor foreign-born staff so that these non-citizens can receive green cards (permanent residence). The article will show that the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”), the agency that referees such controversies, has failed to resolve these discordant interests to anyone’s satisfaction; instead the DOL has created and oversees the labor-market test – technically known as the Program Electronic Review Management (“PERM”) labor certification process – in ways that may suggest bureaucratic whim rather than neutral agency action. The DOL’s PERM process – the usual prerequisite1 for American businesses to employ foreign nationals on a permanent (indefinite) basis – is the method prescribed by the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) for negotiating this conflict of interests in the workplace. At first blush, the statutorily imposed resolution seems reasonable, requiring the DOL to certify in each case that the position offered to the foreign citizen could not be filled by a U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Per-Country Limits on Permanent Employment-Based Immigration
    Numerical Limits on Permanent Employment- Based Immigration: Analysis of the Per-country Ceilings Carla N. Argueta Analyst in Immigration Policy July 28, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R42048 Numerical Limits on Employment-Based Immigration Summary The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) specifies a complex set of numerical limits and preference categories for admitting lawful permanent residents (LPRs) that include economic priorities among the criteria for admission. Employment-based immigrants are admitted into the United States through one of the five available employment-based preference categories. Each preference category has its own eligibility criteria and numerical limits, and at times different application processes. The INA allocates 140,000 visas annually for employment-based LPRs, which amount to roughly 14% of the total 1.0 million LPRs in FY2014. The INA further specifies that each year, countries are held to a numerical limit of 7% of the worldwide level of LPR admissions, known as per-country limits or country caps. Some employers assert that they continue to need the “best and the brightest” workers, regardless of their country of birth, to remain competitive in a worldwide market and to keep their firms in the United States. While support for the option of increasing employment-based immigration may be dampened by economic conditions, proponents argue it is an essential ingredient for economic growth. Those opposing increases in employment-based LPRs assert that there is no compelling evidence of labor shortages and cite the rate of unemployment across various occupations and labor markets. With this economic and political backdrop, the option of lifting the per-country caps on employment-based LPRs has become increasingly popular.
    [Show full text]
  • Why the Securing America's Future Act, 2.0 Won't Fix the Farm Labor Crisis
    WHY THE SECURING AMERICA’S FUTURE ACT, 2.0 WON’T FIX THE FARM LABOR CRISIS AREA OF CONCERN #1: CURRENT WORKFORCE The proposed single solution, a new H-2C program, will not provide a workable solution for our current workforce. While the SAF Act 2.0 does make a number of improvements that agriculture has been asking for over the past several months, it continues to lack provisions for an effective, stable transition in which we can be confident the current workforce will participate. SAF Act Provisions Why Ag Is Concerned Offers experienced, unauthorized agricultural workers At least half of the ~2 million farm workers hired the ability to participate in the H-2C guest worker each year lack proper status. Requiring initial program. This allows them to attain legal work status departure from the U.S. will lead to chaos for H-2C and the ability to travel to and from the United States. users and non-users alike, despite proposals for a “pre-certification” process addressing employer Requires unauthorized agricultural workers to eligibility. The average term of employment of the temporarily leave the U.S. in order to join the H-2C workforce exceeds 14 years. It is unlikely that program, which they must do within the first 12 months married falsely documented farm workers will of enactment of the final rules implementing the Act. voluntarily elect to join a program that increases the chances their immediate family will be deported. Once they are in the H-2C program, seasonal workers Production ag needs a stabilization period which will are required to depart the country every 24 months and allow current experienced workers to apply and be go through the visa process again.
    [Show full text]
  • Driver's Licenses, State ID, and Michigan Immigrants
    Driver’s Licenses, State ID, and Michigan Immigrants DRAFT Introduction Since 2008, Michigan has required applicants for driver’s licenses and state identification to provide proof of U.S. citizenship or immigration status. This change was part of a series of post-9/11 changes, and has had significant consequences for all Michiganders who use the roads. Ten states, plus the District of Columbia, have already changed their laws to permit some form of legal driving without proof of immigration status.1 States have chosen to restore access to driver’s licenses irrespective of immigration status to address significant economic and public safety-related challenges posed by greatly-increased numbers of unlicensed drivers, including reductions the agricultural workforce, exclusion from the insurance market, This report highlights the economic and safety benefits to all Michigan residents of expanding access to driver’s licenses for all otherwise-eligible Michigan drivers. Section One describes the legal background, the federal REAL ID Act and states’ relationship to it; Section Two explores potential benefits to the State of Michigan by allowing more individuals to be eligible for state driver’s licenses and identification cards; and Section Three states specific recommended changes to Michigan law. Section 1: Background A. Background of Michigan Driver’s Licenses & REAL ID Act Compliance Prior to 2008, Michigan law contained no requirement that an applicant for a driver’s license or state ID card needed a specific immigration or citizenship status in order to be eligible. Applicants did have to submit documents that were sufficient to prove identity and establish state residency.
    [Show full text]
  • COYOTES Animal Damage Control Lakewood, Colorado 80228
    Jeffrey S. Green Assistant Regional Director USDA-APHIS- COYOTES Animal Damage Control Lakewood, Colorado 80228 F. Robert Henderson Extension Specialist Animal Damage Control Kansas State University Manhattan, Kansas 66506-1600 Mark D. Collinge State Director USDA-APHIS- Animal Damage Control Boise, Idaho 83705 Fig. 1. Coyote, Canis latrans Damage Prevention and Shed lambing, kidding, and calving Toxicants usually reduce coyote predation. Control Methods M-44 ejector devices for use with Remove carrion to help limit coyote sodium cyanide-loaded plastic Exclusion populations. capsules. They are most effective Produce livestock in confinement. Frightening Agents and during cold weather (fall to spring). Repellents Herd livestock into pens at night. Livestock protection collars (LPC) Guarding dogs: Some dogs have containing Compound 1080 Exclusion fences (net-wire and/or (sodium monofluoroacetate) are electric), properly constructed and significantly reduced coyote predation. registered for use only in certain maintained, can aid significantly in states. reducing predation. Donkeys and llamas: Some are Fumigants Cultural Methods and aggressive toward canines and have Habitat Modification reduced coyote predation. Gas cartridges are registered as a burrow (den) fumigant. Select pastures that have a lower Sonic and visual repellents: Strobe incidence of predation to reduce lights, sirens, propane cannons, and Trapping exposure of livestock to predation. others have reduced predation on both sheep and calves. Leghold traps (Nos. 3 and 4) are Herding of livestock generally reduces effective and are the most versatile Chemical odor and taste repellents: predation due to human presence control tool. during the herding period. None have shown sufficient effectiveness to be registered for Snares are effective where coyotes pass Change lambing, kidding, and calving use.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Customs and Border Protection General Notices
    U.S. Customs and Border Protection General Notices AGENCY INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITIES: Cost Submission AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: 30-Day Notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing information collection: 1651–0028. SUMMARY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the De- partment of Homeland Security has submitted the following infor- mation collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Cost Submission. This is a proposed extension of an information collection that was previously approved. CBP is propos- ing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours. This document is published to obtain comments form the public and affected agencies. This proposed information col- lection was previously published in the Federal Register (72 FR 59104) on October 18, 2007, allowing for a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before Febru- ary 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of In- formation and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Bud- get. Comments should be addressed to Nathan Lesser, Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/Customs and Border Protection, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected] or faxed to (202) 395–6974. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) encourages the general public and affected Federal agencies to submit written comments 1 2 CUSTOMS BULLETIN AND DECISIONS, VOL.
    [Show full text]
  • The Biden Administration IMMIGRATION PRIORITIES
    The Biden Administration IMMIGRATION PRIORITIES TRUMP ADMINISTRATION BIDEN ADMINISTRATION Twilight Executive Action First 100 Days 300 Days 500 Days Green Card Interviews. Re-prioritize green card interviews Public Charge. Revise document requirements for establishing New Rules. Issue new final DOL wage rule; issue new final New Rules. Suspend implementation of new final rules to focus on fraud data, removing interview requirements for financial capacity. DHS Strengthening H-1B rule (not published); and issue final pending review by Biden administration and withdraw employment-based applications and focusing on marriage- rule on H-1B lottery selection based on wage levels. DHS Strengthening H-1B rule. On January 20, the Biden based applications. Administration placed a temporary, 60-day regulatory On February 4, the Biden Administration announced that the freeze on certain rulemaking, including these new rules. effective date of the H-1B Wage Selection Final Rule will be delayed until December 31, 2021. Travel and Visa Bans. Rescind Proclamation 10052 STEM PhD H Cap Exemption. Exempt recent graduates of Annual EB Quotas. Work with Congress to increase the number Travel and Visa Bans. Extend COVID-related travel suspension of entry for certain H-1B, L-1, J-1, and H-2B PhD programs in STEM fields in the United States from annual of annual employment-based, immigrant visas beyond 140,000 restrictions and nonimmigrant (H-1B, L-1, J-1 and H-2B) visa non-immigrants and Proclamation 10014 suspension of H-1B caps. and create a process for varying the number based on and green card bans. new immigrant visas. contemporary economic circumstances.
    [Show full text]
  • Equal Access to Green Cards for Legal Employment (EAGLE) Act of 2021 Section-By-Section
    Equal Access to Green cards for Legal Employment (EAGLE) Act of 2021 Section-by-Section SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE. Establishes the short titles of the bill as the “Equal Access to Green cards for Legal Employment Act of 2021” or “EAGLE Act.” SEC. 2. NUMERICAL LIMITATION TO ANY SINGLE FOREIGN STATE. • Eliminates the “per country” limitation on employment-based immigrant visas and raises it from 7 percent to 15 percent for family-based immigrant visas. • Restores 1,000 employment-based visas per fiscal year that have been set aside for applicants under the Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992. • Establishes an effective date of the first day of the second fiscal year after the date of the enactment of the Act. • Provides for a 9-year transition period for the elimination of the per-country limit for the employment-based second (EB-2 advanced degree professionals/exceptional ability aliens) and employment-based third (EB-3 professionals/skilled workers/other worker) preference categories as follows: o Reserved Visas for Lower Admission States. Reserves visas for countries other than the two countries with highest demand for such visas (India and China) for nine fiscal years (FY) as follows: . FY 1: 30% of such visas. FY 2: 25% of such visas. FY 3: 20% of such visas. FY 4: 15% of such visas. FY 5 and 6: 10% of such visas. FY 7, 8, and 9: 5% of such visas. o Reserved Visas for New Arrivals. For FY 1 through FY 9, reserves an additional 5.75% of such visas for individuals from countries other than India and China, to be allocated in the following order of priority: (1) derivatives who are accompanying or following-to-join a principal in the United States; (2) new principal arrivals who have not lived or worked in the United States in the 4 years preceding the filing of the immigrant visa petition; and (3) other new arrivals.
    [Show full text]
  • Harvard Kennedy School Journal of Hispanic Policy a Harvard Kennedy School Student Publication
    Harvard Kennedy School Journal of Hispanic Policy A Harvard Kennedy School Student Publication Volume 30 Staff Kristell Millán Editor-in-Chief Estivaliz Castro Senior Editor Alberto I. Rincon Executive Director Bryan Cortes Senior Editor Leticia Rojas Managing Editor, Print Jazmine Garcia Delgadillo Senior Amanda R. Matos Managing Editor, Editor Digital Daniel Gonzalez Senior Editor Camilo Caballero Director, Jessica Mitchell-McCollough Senior Communications Editor Rocio Tua Director, Alumni & Board Noah Toledo Senior Editor Relations Max Wynn Senior Editor Sara Agate Senior Editor Martha Foley Publisher Elizabeth Castro Senior Editor Richard Parker Faculty Advisor Recognition of Former Editors A special thank you to the former editors Alex Rodriguez, 1995–96 of the Harvard Kennedy School Journal of Irma Muñoz, 1996–97 Hispanic Policy, previously known as the Myrna Pérez, 1996–97 Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy, whose Eraina Ortega, 1998–99 legacy continues to be a source of inspira- Nereyda Salinas, 1998–99 tion for Latina/o students Harvard-wide. Raúl Ruiz, 1999–2000 Maurilio León, 1999–2000 Henry A.J. Ramos, Founding Editor, Sandra M. Gallardo, 2000–01 1984–86 Luis S. Hernandez Jr., 2000–01 Marlene M. Morales, 1986–87 Karen Hakime Bhatia, 2001–02 Adolph P. Falcón, 1986–87 Héctor G. Bladuell, 2001–02 Kimura Flores, 1987–88 Jimmy Gomez, 2002–03 Luis J. Martinez, 1988–89 Elena Chávez, 2003–04 Genoveva L. Arellano, 1989–90 Adrian J. Rodríguez, 2004–05 David Moguel, 1989–90 Edgar A. Morales, 2005–06 Carlo E. Porcelli, 1990–91 Maria C. Alvarado, 2006–07 Laura F. Sainz, 1990–91 Tomás J. García, 2007–08 Diana Tisnado, 1991–92 Emerita F.
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLIC CHARGE and the THREAT to IMMIGRANT FAMILIES in CALIFORNIA Reducing the Chilling Effect on Medi-Cal Participation
    PUBLIC CHARGE AND THE THREAT TO IMMIGRANT FAMILIES IN CALIFORNIA Reducing the Chilling Effect on Medi-Cal Participation Grace Kim • Renee Lahey • Marcus Silva • Sean Tan CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANT POLICY CENTER ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to the following individuals whose significant contributions were instrumental in developing this report: Prof. Mark A. Peterson, Primary Advisor Prof. Wesley Yin, Second Advisor Almas Sayeed, California Immigrant Policy Center Irma Livadic, Iman Nanji, Josh Summers, Caio Velasco, Ryan Weinberg; Peer Reviewers We would also like to thank the following individuals for their help in refining our analysis: Nancy Aspaturian Hon. Brian Nestande Adam Barsch Mike Odeh Connie Choi Prof. Ninez Ponce Prof. Darin Christensen Prof. Sarah Reber Madeleine Ildefonso Eric Schattl Mitchell Jacobs Kristen Golden Testa Sabrina Kim Prof. Abel Valenzuela Prof. Gerald Kominski Virdiana Velez Marielle Kress Joseph Villela Thai Le Prof. Steve Wallace Laurel Lucia AJ Young Disclaimer This report was prepared in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Public Policy degree in the Department of Public Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles. It was prepared at the direction of the Department and the California Immigrant Policy Center as a policy client. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department, the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, UCLA as a whole, or the client. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 5 Glossary 6 Acronyms and Initialisms 7 Chapter
    [Show full text]